Frankly, this is ridiculous. Yes, Google is a private company and has the right to do whatever it wants, but this sort of prudish, paternalistic role in determining what content is appropriate and what content is "artistic" or "educational" is a path with a lot of landmines that will lead to stifled speech on a platform that used to be celebrated for enabling free speech around the globe. On top of that, you have people who have used the platform to post this kind of information and content for over a decade suddenly being evicted with 30 days notice. Yes, this is always a risk that you take when you rely on someone else's platform, but it's a really unfortunate move from a company that one would hope would know better than to take such a hamfisted position on what content it "allows."

Of course, as Violet Blue notes, this is only the latest in a long line of moves by Google to stifle, hide or block any content that is sexual in nature. Here's just a snippet of a much longer piece by Blue, detailing the timeline of recent decisions by Google, all of which push content the company deems inappropriate further and further away:

It was one thing when Google Plus rolled out in June 2011 with a strict anti-adult, no sexual content policy for its troubled attempt at a social network; many of us just didn't bother participating, knowing how the content-policy ax always falls (not on the side of artists, writers, activists, LGBT people, or cultural outsiders who speak up).

In February 2014 adult and erotic content was banned from Chromecast, followed by March 2014's ban and purge of adult and erotic apps from Google Play (Android's app and media hub).

April saw an ongoing series of Google Search algorithm updates that savaged existing adult website rankings, causing major disruptions in traffic and revenues for many websites.

So it's no surprise that many people believe that Google won't uphold its "freedom of expression" stance when it comes to organic adult search results.

I'm sure there are plenty of good business reasons why Google no longer wants to have this kind of content available on its site, but it's disappointing on multiple levels. It's not "censorship" in the classical sense, but it does seem like a really bad move by Google. It's a company that should know better, and often holds itself up as enabling more speech around the globe, and avoiding making any sort of "artistic" decisions on the worthiness of content. It is immensely troubling that this company now suddenly wants to determine which content it thinks is "appropriate" and which is not, not based on any legal requirements, but on a very subjective standard. Facebook did this sort of thing from early on in doing ridiculous things like banning "breastfeeding" images, and one would hope that Google would take a more reasonable stand. On top of that, giving people just 30 days to figure out where to go, when many have built up their blogs for over a decade just seems tremendously callous.

Google is a private company and can make its own choices, but this one seems like a particularly bad choice, which may have other consequences as well. For years, Google has pushed back on demands from copyright holders to magically monitor all its content, saying that it's just not possible. Yet, here it is now saying that it's willing to do exactly that, including making "artistic" judgments on the merits of whether adult content is purely prurient or done for a more artistic or educational reason. The company seems to be opening itself up to charges that if it can make such determinations for that type of content, it can also magically figure out what other content is "infringing" or not. This seems like a move that the company will regret.

from the silence-all-of-you dept

Back in April of last year, we were among the first to report on a very dangerous new law in Russia targeting bloggers, requiring any blogger or social media user with more than 3,000 "visitors" a day to register their real name with the government. The idea, obviously, is to put a massive chill on free speech among popular bloggers and social media users -- making it clear that the government is tracking everything they do. Just recently we noted how various social media platforms were responding to Russian demands that they censor or take down accounts related to opposition politician Alexei Navalny, or other critics of the government.

In order to be compiant with the Russian Internet Bloggers Law the following changes will be implemented to Russian Intel® Developer Zone community as of January 1st 2015:

Blog post contributions will be disabled

Forum contributions will be disabled

All commenting will be turned off for russian content

While it's unlikely that those in power in Russia today think this is a very big deal, recognize that taking Russians out of forums and discussions concerning key technological developments could certainly come back to haunt Russian technology development. This also comes about a month after Google closed down its Russian engineering office, in response to a different regulatory shift: a "data handling law" that would require all information from Russian users be kept in Russia (making it more easily accessible by Russian officials and the intelligence community).

All of these moves may be designed to shore up the existing leadership's political power, but it seems like a fairly short-term strategy, given that the end result is likely to hold back technological expertise and talent at a time when staying on top of technology is so important.

from the and-the-moral-of-the-story-is-don't-shoot-dogs dept

A few years ago, we wrote about the bizarre and quixotic effort by Florida businessman Christopher Comins to find any possible way to sue University of Florida student and blogger Matthew Frederick VanVoorhis for his blog post concerning a widely publicized event in which Comins shot two dogs in a field (video link). The story made lots of news at the time, but Comins didn't go after any of the major media -- instead targeting VanVoorhis for a defamation suit. The original blog post is "novelistic" but it's difficult to see how it's defamatory. Either way, Comins' case was shot down on fairly specific procedural grounds: namely that Florida defamation law requires specific notice be given to media properties at least 5 days before a lawsuit is launched. Specifically, the law says:

Before any civil action is brought for publication or
broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium, of a
libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before
instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the
defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the
statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and
defamatory.

Comins' lawsuit was dumped because he failed to give such notice. Comins argues that he did give such a notice (though the letter he sent did not meet the requirements of such notice under the law) and (more importantly for this discussion) that VanVoorhis' blog did not count as a media publication, and thus the law did not apply. The original court ruling rejected that pretty quickly, and now on appeal, a state appeals court has not just rejected Comins' anti-blog claim more thoroughly, but also highlighted the importance of blogs to our media landscape.

The full ruling does a nice job giving the history and purpose of the law above, as well as the importance of encouraging the media to report on difficult stories. And from there, it explains why VanVoorhis' blog is clearly a part of the media and why blogs in general are so important:

...it is hard to dispute that the advent of the internet as a medium and the emergence of the blog as a means of free dissemination of news and public comment have been transformative. By some accounts, there are in the range of 300 million blogs worldwide. The variety and quality of these are such that the word “blog” itself is an evolving term and concept. The impact of blogs has been so great that even terms traditionally well defined and understood in journalism are changing as journalists increasingly employ the tools and techniques of bloggers – and vice versa. In employing the word “blog,” we consider a site operated by a single individual or a small group that has primarily an informational purpose, most commonly in an area of special interest, knowledge or expertise of the blogger, and which usually provides for public impact or feedback. In that sense, it appears clear that many blogs and bloggers will fall within the broad reach of “media,” and, if accused of defamatory statements, will qualify as a “media defendant” for purposes of Florida’s defamation law as discussed above.

There are many outstanding blogs on particular topics, managed by persons of exceptional expertise, to whom we look for the most immediate information on recent developments and on whom we rely for informed explanations of the meaning of these developments. Other blogs run the gamut of quality of expertise, explanation and even- handed treatment of their subjects. We are not prepared to say that all blogs and all bloggers would qualify for the protection of section 770.01, Florida Statutes, but we conclude that VanVoorhis’s blog, at issue here, is within the ambit of the statute’s protection as an alternative medium of news and public comment.

While it seems crazy that this kind of issue is still being debated in 2014, it's good to see a court make such a clear statement on the fact that blogs will often qualify as media properties.

from the anyone-can-publish-on-cnn dept

Over the years, at times, I've seen people criticize Bruce Schneier for perhaps getting more publicity than other security researchers, but it's rare to see people question his knowledge. The complaints often appear to stem more out of jealousy than anything else. But, I've never seen anything quite as ridiculous as this "CNN iReport" by Richard Marshall and Andre Brisson, which appears to be a blatant hatchet job attack on Schneier that is at times incomprehensible, at times factually incorrect and bizarre throughout. Marshall is a former NSA and DHS "cybersecurity" expert, but he's now the CEO of "Whitenoise Labs," (something not mentioned in the article). Brisson is the founder of Whitenoise Labs, and appears to have a beef with Schneier going back at least a decade if not more. Brisson and Marshall appear to not be particularly adept at explaining themselves, so the history is not clearly laid out anywhere. The short hand, as far as I can tell, is that Brisson thinks he's discovered some magic elixir security solution, which Schneier mocked way back in 2003. Brisson now feels that the security community gives him no respect and even Defcon ignores his pleas to present his own brilliance.

Last year, Brisson appears to have hired Marshall, and the two of them see this as an opportunity to attack Schneier. It looks like there are two main points to the article: (1) they don't like Bruce Schneier (2) they want you to know about their own solution, which even they admit Schneier dismissed as "snake oil." But here's the bizarre part. Even though it's clear that they're just trying to promote their own thing, pretty much the whole point of their article is that you shouldn't trust Bruce Schneier because he blogs and he's only trying to promote his own business. I'm not joking.

It appears that one of the sources of Mr. Schneier’s information are documents leaked by E.Snowden, fugitive American living in Russia and former contractor with Booz Allen Hamilton, and Glenn Greenwald, a journalist who worked with Mr. Snowden. Mr. Schneier’s intentions clearly have nothing to do with his convictions about privacy, as much as business and profit motives. It must be emphasized that blogs are not journalism: they are marketing tools specifically designed to try to sell a product, not to get to the truth.

Where to start? First off, it does not "appear" that one of the sources is Snowden, it is confirmed fact. Also, Greenwald did not "work with" Snowden. Greenwald is a journalist and Snowden was a source. Since then, the Guardian, whom Greenwald worked for, also brought on Schneier to help understand some of the Snowden documents. This is all public knowledge. Second, while Schneier does blog quite a bit, he's also been regularly published in all sorts of news publications that have significant editorial staffs, including The Guardian, the Atlantic, Harvard Business Review, Wired and more.

The suggestion that he's just some random blogger is obviously false, and pretty much everyone knows that. Furthermore, Schneier's experience in the field is pretty damn well documented. His own firm, Counterpane, was acquired years ago by British Telecom and Schneier has obviously done tremendous work in the world of computer security for many, many years.

Weeks of research regarding Mr. Schneier’s claims have highlighted one of the most frustrating problems with the internet age. Because virtually anyone lacking serious journalistic credentials can, and often does, write or post freely on any subject, the resulting sheer volume of information available may lead people to believe that the reporting is even-handed and well-researched. Unfortunately, in many circumstances nothing can be farther from the truth.

Weeks? As noted: Brisson's feud with Schneier appears to go back a decade. And it took me all of about 3 minutes to find all those well known publications that Schneier writes for. Brisson and Marshall (two people!) couldn't find them in weeks? Also, I'm beginning to wonder if the above paragraph actually refers to the article by Brisson and Marshall a lot more than anything Schneier has ever done.

Because the very information analyzed and evaluated may result in policy, it absolutely demands that such information be subject to the highest and most stringent scrutiny and as such, deserves to be evaluated and vetted by verified experts, politicians, business leaders, and citizens with proven track records of integrity, honesty, and true concern for the public interest. It should not be done by those with a history of practicing self-interest over privacy and security.

Again, this is coming from people whose main purpose with this article appears to be promoting their own mocked security solution, and who regularly run silly promotional "contests" and "countdown clocks" designed to focus on their own self-interest.

For many weeks, it has been noted that volumes of proselytizing and dissemination of “opinion-as-fact” come from unverified information through Mr. Schneier’s self-promoting blog, other blogs and various online sites, such as gamer’s sites, of unknown, dubious reputation and/or expertise in the critical areas of cryptography and privacy and not from reputable publications as The New York Times or The Washington Post.

I'll let that sink in for a bit. Notice, of course, that they leave out "The Guardian" and "The Atlantic" -- two publications that Schneier does write for, with reputations that are at least on par with the two publications named. Also, it appears to leave out that both the Washington Post and the NY Times have been publishing stories quite similar to Schneier's, and both have (at least some of) the same documents from Snowden, which these two guys mocked Schneier for using as his source.

Mr. Schneier decries the NSA and mandated law enforcement agencies empowered by our laws. Yet, Mr. Schneier’s track record shows, significantly, that at least twice over the last decade he has turned a blind eye to workable security (but he complains about privacy.)

This bold claim is not supported anywhere in the article. It likely refers to Schneier ignoring or mocking their own "solution."

The article goes on to make some half-baked suggestions about how to deal with the NSA surveillance issues that suggest they don't even understand what's going on. Their solution? "using the improved security technology we have available to combat the fatal flaws of public key" technology -- which of course is what their firm has been pushing on the world for years, and which ignores the fact that the evidence so far from Snowden has shown that public key encryption, when done right, still works pretty damn well.

Reading the article, it's laughable. Nearly all of the attacks on Schneier are more accurately directed at the authors of that article. If the DHS and the NSA are looking to attack Schneier, they should at least try to find former execs who can write comprehensibly, and who didn't go off to work for a foreign "security" company with dubious credentials.

from the content-free-content dept

Around the world, we have been watching the gradual taming of social media, especially in countries where governments keep mainstream media on a tight leash. But even against that background, this news from the Bangkok Post about Vietnam's latest moves to censor online content is pretty extraordinary:

"Personal electronic sites are only allowed to put news owned by that person, and are not allowed to 'quote', 'gather' or summarise information from press organisations or government websites," local media quoted Hoang Vinh Bao, director of the Broadcasting and Electronic Information Department at the Ministry of Information and Communications, as saying.

The ban was approved by Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung on July 15, communicated to Vietnamese press late Wednesday, and was due to come into force on Sept 1.

It also bans individuals from providing "general information" on their profiles or blogs.

That's even more extreme than China's approach, which may take down troublesome material as soon as it is put up, but at least allows the possibility of putting it up in the first place. Vietnam's rules mean that online news can only be carried by "official" channels, which are closely regulated. For everyone else, it seems, the Internet must by law become the realm of entirely content-free narcissism -- and pictures of cats.

Fundamental freedoms apply online just as they do offline. Decree 72 appears to be inconsistent with Vietnam's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as its commitments under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

from the huh? dept

We've linked to the Photography Is Not A Crime (PINAC) blog on Pixiq.com many times in the past. To be honest, I had no idea that the site was actually owned by Barnes and Noble -- I had assumed that it was just an independent blogging operation. It turns out, however, that B&N hired Carlos Miller, who had written PINAC as an independent blog, and "moved" the blog to Pixiq two years ago. However, it recently chose not to renew his contract, and agreed to transfer the blog back to being independent. Except... that now it's claiming that it cannot transfer all of the comments on the site because that would somehow violate B&N's privacy policies (note that link goes to PINAC at Pixiq... but I have no idea where it will go in a week when the "transfer" takes place). At best, B&N says it can transfer the comments but only as "anonymous."

At first, Pixiq was asking me to sign a document, which stated that the migration of my blog would not include a single comment because of its privacy policy.

But when I protested, Pixiq attorney Gillian Berman said they would make an exception in my case and migrate the comments, but turn every username into “anonymous,” which would make every single comment over the last two years appear to have been left the same person.

This makes no sense. We're not talking about handing private info over to a third party, but the actual names that people chose to display publicly. Perhaps B&N would have an argument if there's concern about transferring email addresses or IP address info with the comments -- but even that seems like a stretch. People commented on a blog. Transferring the entire blog to a different site doesn't change any of that -- but it's especially stupid when it comes to public info like commenters' chosen display names.

It seems like the only explanation I can figure out is that B&N is being incredibly lazy here, and doesn't want to do the bare minimum amount of work to return the blog to Carlos. We've seen a few other blogs "join" different sites in the past, and it seems worth highlighting how the separation can create ridiculous problems like this when a big company decides to make claims that just don't make any sense.

from the welcome-to-the-world-of-weblogs dept

It's something of a truism that the courts take time to catch up with technology, especially in the fast-moving world of the Internet, but Thomas Steen points us to a recent court decision in Norway where the gulf between law and life is particularly wide. The case concerns a blogger called Eivind Berge who was arrested recently on account of some statements on his blog that allegedly "glorified and encouraged the killing of policemen" as a report on the Dagbladet newspaper site puts it (Norwegian original.) Moreover:

Berge also wrote that he "planned" to attack a policeman with a knife on a Saturday evening at Torgallmenningen in Bergen, and in police questioning, he confirmed that he supports the killing of policemen as a tool in the fight against male feminists.

The Gulating court had to consider whether Berge's writings were criminal under the Norwegian Penal Code, and came to the following, rather surprising, conclusion (Google Translation):

"In the present case we hear of statements the accused has made [on] his "blog" on the internet. This can be read and commented on [by] others, in that they seek and log onto the blog. The Court can not see that this means such a reproduction as the law requires," according to today's ruling.

This means in brief that a mass medium that can reach absolutely everyone in the world, which is publicly known, [with] many readers, is searchable by Google and that despite what it says in the ruling does not require authorization by any means, [is] not public.

Indeed, Larsen believes that the ruling as it stands might even apply to any Web site, not just blogs:

Gulating Court of Appeal in short, just know that the expression on the Internet are not public, regardless of deployment size, nature or amount of reading.

The Dagbladet piece says that the police are expected to appeal to Norway's Supreme Court. Assuming that happens, the lower court's ruling seems likely to be overturned, since it is based on an almost complete misunderstanding of how blogs work and Net dissemination takes place.

from the but-we-need-to-support-newspapers dept

We hear over and over again from traditional reporters how we need to "protect" newspapers and how, as newspapers fail, no one can step in and replace them -- especially not "new media" like blogs. In fact, we're told how newspapers are "trustworthy," but blogs are "amateurish" and prone to hyperbole and errors. It's a common story told over and over again -- especially by those supporting the idea of paywalls and the like. In fact, we wrote about yet another such example just recently. And yet... it seems that we just as frequently hear about newspapers making big mistakes, and blogs stepping in to correct them.

Among the many, many errors in Crovitz's piece were the claims that Tim Berners-Lee (no relation to Tim Lee above) "invented hyperlinks." He did no such thing. He invented the web, which came long after hypertext and hyperlinks were well known and well-established. He also tries to downplay Arpanet, and worst of all pretends that because Vint Cerf (with Bob Kahn) invented TCP/IP, that it shows it was done without the government's help. He, of course, leaves out that both were employed... by the government. It also plays up the importance of ethernet, invented at Xerox PARC. This was a big deal (and I even have a photo of the first ethernet connection that I recently took on a tour of PARC), but that was for local networks and not "the internet."

To be fair, this is the opinion pages, not the reporting pages, but the WSJ is supposed to have a pretty high bar for getting facts right, isn't it? And I would assume that applies to the opinion pages as well. Of course, what's interesting is that Crovitz has a history of this kind of thing. A couple years ago, we wrote about another piece by him which misattributed a quote of mine to someone else's and then took three days or so to post a correction. This Crovitz piece has added one correction at the time of my writing this, but only for (another) misattributed quote (Crovitz apparently didn't realize that he was quoting a blog post by Tyler Cowen quoting someone else and attributed it to Cowen). Everything else is still in there.

Of course, even more ironic in all of this is that Crovitz helped found Journalism Online -- one of the leading companies pushing newspapers to set up paywalls, arguing that newspapers need people to pay, or all good reporting will go away. Everyone makes mistakes. It's not limited to either newspapers or blogs. I don't mean to pick on Crovitz or the WSJ in particular here (even though the mistakes in his piece were both plentiful and easily cross checked). It's just that the idea that newspapers have some sort of "lock" on factual, objective reporting -- whereas newfangled "blogs" are chock full of misinformation -- is an inaccurate position. Yes, there's plenty of misinformation spread on various sites, but the same thing shows up in "traditional" media too. The point is that the wider ecosystem seems to be pretty damn good at highlighting those mistakes (even if the WSJ is then very slow to correct them).

In order to protect people from online defamation, this law states that each webmaster of whatever website must rectify within 48 hours (even if you’re a private blogger who just left for the weekend!) any page on the website itself, if somebody just tells him or her (how?) that they consider themselves wronged by that page. No discussion or reply allowed, no judge needed, and the fine for not "rectifying" within 2 days is 12K Euros [about $15,000].

The newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano gives an example of just how absurd that might be in practice (original in Italian):

A site writes about an arrest; the person arrested in prison could perhaps get his lawyer to say that it is not true that he has been arrested, and the Web site would be obliged to print this correction (without comment), or face a big fine.

Although it would be nice to think that such an absurdity would be thrown out once again by the Italian politicians, that's by no means certain, not least because the ACTA technique is being employed here:

As it too often happens in Italy with similar small but surely unpopular norms, it is "hidden" as a sub-section of a wider law proposal on an unrelated issue, in this case wiretapping.

Let's hope Italian bloggers spread the word about this shabby trick -- while they still can.

from the hello-secondary-liability dept

I would have hoped that, by now, most people could understand basic secondary liability issues, such as the difference between a service provider who provides the tools/service for communications and a content creator and/or publisher who actually creates or chooses the content. Unfortunately, when large sums of money are involved, people often have difficultly distinguishing the two. The latest situation involves a guy in Australia, named Joshua Meggitt, who appeared to have a legitimate defamation claim by Australian writer/TV personality Marieke Hardy. On her blog, she accused Meggitt of writing "ranting, hateful" articles about her. She then posted a link to her blog on Twitter, where it got a lot of attention. Hardy and Meggitt have already "settled" the dispute between each other, with a rumored $15,000 changing hands, but Meggitt has now sued Twitter directly claiming that it "published" the tweet by putting it on its front page.

It strikes me that there are a number of (significant) legal problems with this lawsuit. First, perhaps this happened a while ago, back when Twitter did show tweets on its front page, but nowadays it does not. Second, I'd be shocked if anyone really used Twitter's front page without an account to find links. Instead, it sounds like people who actually followed Hardy saw her tweet in their views from the site -- which wouldn't have anything to do with Twitter making any kind of editorial choice at all. Even if it was back under the (very) old system when Twitter did display some tweets, I'm pretty sure those were just random tweets from the stream. Arguing that Twitter has any real selection choice in those is pretty ridiculous.

Furthermore, it appears from the description in the article that the tweet from Hardy didn't even name Meggitt. Perhaps it did elsewhere, but the tweet repeated in the Sydney Morning Herald just says:

Her tweet read: ''I name and shame my 'anonymous' internet bully. Liberating business! Join me,'' with a link to her blog, where she incorrectly named Mr. Meggitt as the author of ''ranting, hateful'' articles about her.

In other words, it's unclear if even the tweet itself should be considered defamatory, rather than the blog post. Linking to a defamatory blog post should never be seen as defamatory itself. Either way, it seems we're getting even further and further away from any actually defamatory statement. If Twitter somehow is liable for defamatory comments written on a blog because someone then tweets a link to that blog, Twitter is going to become a hell of a lot less useful.

While Meggitt claims that he's not subject to Twitter's terms of service, since he doesn't use it, that's meaningless. The issue has nothing to do with Twitter's terms of service. It has to do with who's the actual liable party and that would be the person who made the defamatory statements. And, from everything that's been said, it sure likes like Meggitt has already settled the claim with that party...